Sanna Dullaway Adds Color to the Most Iconic Photos in History

General-interest blog The Roosevelts has posted a selection of artist Sanna Dullaway's colorized images, showing what iconic images might have looked like to the photographer that captured them. Among the (exceeding well-done, it must be said) adjusted images are Malcolm Browne's iconic shot of monk Thich Quang Duc's self-immolation, Alfred Eisenstaedt's famous image of the kiss in Times Square on VJ Day, and Anne Frank's haunting 1942 portrait.

The images are unattributed, but appear to originate with Swedish artist Sanna Dullaway.

Abraham Lincoln in color

Thich Quang Duc's self-immolation (1968)

Atomic test (1946)

Alfred Hitchcock - 'Master of Horror' in color

Anne Frank (1942)

Dorothea Lange's 'Migrant Mother' (1936)

Margaret Bourke-White took this iconic shot in 1937 - here's how it might have looked to her.

Comments

Frankly, I have converted almost all my shooting to black and white. The colorization of Dorothea Lange's work and Bourke- White's images are a clear demonstration that black and white is a much more powerful medium; more powerful at best and much more interesting in the least. In my personal opinion, only a subject that by its nature cries out for color should in fact be rendered in color. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Ms. Dullaway's flattery of Ted Turner (colorization) is very misplaced. I believe the answer is simply, that this woman was driven solely by trying to do something to give credence to her last name. Unfortunately, I do not find any of the originals "Dull". VRR

I too prefer BW over color. However there are instances where color gives the scope more dramatically, like the immolation where fire looks real and someone is burning in it.I guess it all depends on how busy the picture is. BW unifies the background and distractions away from the main subject.In the end its all "relative to the observer" as the colored old man on the title would say.

Most of these original artists are long dead and never made any public statements regarding their stand on having their works adulterated. Luckily, one B&W artist, legendary film maker John Huston, DID survive into this ridiculous era of colorization and said he chose B&W over color quite intentionally:

"the aesthetic conception which earned John HUSTON his great fame is based on the interplay of black andwhite, which enabled him to create an atmosphere according to which he directed the actor and selectedthe backdrops; moreover, he expressed himself clearly about his film entitled “The Maltese Falcon” whenstating, “I wanted to shoot it in black and white like a sculptor chooses to work in clay, to pour his workin bronze, to sculpt in marble”.... “ASPHALT JUNGLE” was shot in black and white, following a deliberate aesthetic choice,according to a process which its authors considered best suited to the character of the work."

Andy Warhol "adulterated" other artists' art, and Jimi Hendrix turned out a glorious, but almost unrecognizable version of "Blue Suede Shoes." Dullaway is not Warhol or Hendrix, but (and because) she's doing her thing.My book of Dorothea Lange photos, for instance, looks exactly the same to me after viewing these photos. Dullaway's work play's on the originals, obviously, but lives alongside them. Her versions won't survive as long as the originals, and I imagine Dullaway is fine with that.

Dullaway's colorization contributes absolutely zip to these original artists' great works, which she has adulterated WITHOUT permission, much like a graffiti "artist" tagging Michelangelo's David, "Because I think it looks cool and I have something to say", they'll contend.

Fair enough opinion. I think legally, these alterations will be considered separate works – no permission required.Personally, I'm enjoying the experiment. I don't think there's any pretence of improving the originals here. They are their own thing. And it's non-destructive; the originals will live on. I shoot almost entirely in B/W myself, for the record.

PlainOrFancy, so I take it you would have no problem with me taking your photographic works and manipulating them however I deem fit, without getting your permission to do so, and posting them here for all to see, right? Afterall, that's exactly what Dullaway has done.

Seen the Ansel Adams color images as well as some stuff shot by Edward Weston. While both their B&W works are timeless and awe-inspiring, the color is competent but pretty much forgettable. To see Adam's work in a parallel media, check out his work "Singular Images" using Polaroid B&W.

The craftsmanship is very good here, and I find many of the images quite lovely. Some of them even have a vintage Kodachrome vibe to them.These will not do anything to diminish the power of the originals, or in any way replace them in the public consciousness, such that it is. I'm quite sure the artist is aware of that. It's just a cool exercise, and everyone is free to look or ignore. I think some of the original artists would have enjoyed these, too.

It's fine for what it is - its own genre, which has little if anything to do with photography. I certainly prefer the black and white as a rule, though occasionally the colour adds a bit to appreciating the scene as documentary: where this is NOT the case is the photo of the self immolating monk which, heaven forfend, looks kitschy.Colour in photography is an entirely different matter than colourING: a matter of light and all its transformations. which can be "gorgeous" indeed.

This is not true. Those called haters have shown some hate against the woman that made the coloring. Many of them also claim that the B&W images are sacrosanct and those tempering with their lack of color are evil.

Yep, its a strong word. But I find it quite pointless to again and again claim that the woman has done something extremely wrong. Because she hasn't. It is only opinions. BTW, I wonder how many would have the guts to say it to Sanna in person.

Changing another artists work is just wrong. If you consider photography art... leave other's work alone. This should be a simple concept. This is not facebook ... this is someone else's art and livelyhood.

All these would have looked much better with Instagram filters...LOLI think they are interesting but don't screw with what is already considered an ICON, just my opinion not saying the work that went into these were dump just not necessary,It's like repainting the Mona Lisa in crayon, just saying.I will say this, I think they were colorized excellent.

Colour is a bit of a nuisance where B&W photography is doing just fine. B&W photography keeps relations simple and focused. Now I am asking myself ''who was the talented tailor in town who did that smart jacket on Mr Lincoln?''

But colour is good to show the youth that history was not in B&W. It is much easier to forget a monochromatic history.

No offense, but artful hand coloring of photographs has been around almost as long as photography itself. And the quality of the craft applied here is very good. It's just that these images were taken with the intention of being printed in Black and White, and the processing manipulation was done for monochromatic tonalities. Pretty or not, coloration of an original B&W work debases it--especially those which have achieved iconic status, such as these.

I remember when Ted Turner started colorizing many of the classic films in his collection: I was waiting for him to do it to Citizen Kane; thankfully that never happened. Greg Toland's brilliant cinematography stood out in its time and is revered for what it was/is today. Those images are revered as masterpieces, not to be "improved upon." Let's respect Dorthea Lange, and the others, for their work in the same way. . .even though we can inject the color of "today."

I quite like them for what they are. They are well processed and offer one persons idea of what the images 'might' have looked like if shot in colour. I guess I see them as a novelty - nothing more and nothing less.

I don't understand all the negativity. Although I wouldn't want the colorized version hanging on my wall, they are fascinating to look at as they are done pretty well and look like authentic color photographs (at least the thumbnails do.)

The color versions give a sense of immediacy and reality that the B&W versions lack. Of course that is the nature of color vs. black and white photography, but it is interesting to see these historical photos in a totally different light. It's like browsing the photo archives at Shorpy.

Looking at these is sort of like attending a funeral viewing of an old friend, seeing him laying there incongruously with make up on for the first time ever, while hearing the old lady behind you saying "he looks so life-like."

Just to be clear, for all her hard work, what this woman has done is created something called kitsch. For those of you who did not grow up in the last century, "kitsch" is a term that was first used by the Germans and it means artwork that's superficially appealing but not enlightening.

"Is a style of mass-produced art or design using cultural icons. The term is generally reserved for unsubstantial or gaudy works, or works that are calculated to have popular appeal. Kitsch mimics its immediate predecessor with no regard to ethics—it aims to copy the beautiful, not the good."

"How your grandparents and great-grandparents used to see the world"? They told me that color was invented in the 1960's! Now I'm to believe that there was color before color TV and color film? Seriously? Is my face red or what?

A predictable response from the purist snobs, but I think these actually look more realistic than a lot of the over-processed photo-paintings so many professional (and amateur) photographers churn out these days. Absolutely brilliantly done.

I guess none of the haters read the text about this article? "...Sanna Dullaway's colorized images, showing what iconic images might have looked like to the photographer that captured them..." Intention to me means what it says "might have looked".

Furthermore no one of them seems to have visited her site where she writes: "No colourised photo can replace the original black and white picture, but each will give you a new persepective on how your grandparents and great-grandparents used to see the world".

I beg to differ. I actually find it not only amazingly well achieved from a technical point of view, but also a very interesting alternative perception of an all important collective heritage. Replacing the originals would have been a crime, but both versions can coexist and complement each other in a very useful way. say bravo.

A parody. In fact, this reminds me of the scene from the "2001: A Space Odyssey" film (yes, it was film-ed): An ape recognises a new tool. Ape grabs it and smashes everything around with it. Feels powerful, uses that tool to play, to kill prey, to kill other apes.

There is a fine line between "arghhh, I can do it", and "ought I do it?", which ape cannot recognise yet. People of 70, 100 or 150 years ago, didn't have tools we have today but they had vivid imagination to compensate and that is why those old images worked so well. Today, it seems the opposite is true.

So compared to the original "2001: A Space Odyssey", this is colour parody is same as "2001: A Space Travesty".

nevermind the "critics", some people feel they haveto find fault in everything. Black and white is awesome because it gives us a sense of detachment being we don't view the world in b&w. to add color to the photos makes them more real and allows us to relate IMO.

Not opposed on principle to this skill-requiring project but except for Anne Frank I don't see the colourized versions as adding anything of value to the world over the original black and whites. In fact, they look a bit like over-cooked HDR efforts.

In Anne Frank's case I find the watermark "mygrapefruit" in the upper right corner of the background absolutely unacceptable and out of place ! Same is also true for the self-immolation of Thich Quang Duc.

Originally I was impressed by the images but the more I looked at them the more critical I have become. I think the worst one is "Migrant Mother" followed by Lincoln. It was a rainy day in Southern California and I'm not understanding the blotchy golden tone the Swedish "artist" decided to use. I had to redo the image and I think it looks much more natural.

Chillbert I previously commended her for her skill, and still do, but no artist is exempt from critique. I think some of the images are really good, such as the Churchill, while others don't hold up to more than a passing glance. Also, what is wrong with addressing her as a Swedish artist? After all, the article does the same.

Ugotvjay I wouldn't say what I did was "nit picking" or "making minor corrections." Weather it was corrected from her version or not is irrelevant. Clearly it looks far more realistic, which was my point.

Someone have been adding colors to FILMS decades ago. Including famous movies like Casablanca. Hey, if someone can do it frame by frame for entire movie, he can do it for individual photo. What's the big deal?

What makes me uncomfortable is someone could be claiming the copyright of the colored photo.

Great skill on display. Forget the should or should not's for moment and just applaud her skills. Art is subjective so not everyone will like it. The fact that she made them look like the real thing is worthy of respect. Great job!

Very skilful done colorings, but ... she needs to pay more attention to reflections. The red of the fire in the burning monk image should light up the ground and make it redder. The water under the mushroom cloud should be grayer etc. At least if she wants to make it look realistic. But ... I really like most of the portraits. They get more 3D.

But 1) the ground isn't lighter in the immolation, and 2) the mushroom cloud shouldn't make the water any grayer than do the regular cumulus clouds in the same photo (plus the mushroom cloud is principally over an island far in the distance and not entirely subject to water reflection). Realism in this case must be determined not by what you might EXPECT in the (redone) photos, but by what's actually IN the (source) photos.

For those who want to know when color film appeared, Autochrome arrived in 1907 and Kodachrome was released in 1935; the first Kodachrome ISO was pretty low, around 10, but it was completely usable. Both Dorthea Lange and MBW were early users of color film.

so many trolls...The technical skill behind this project is considerable - just try to colorize any BW image and see where it lands you. Heck, most of you haters can't even take a decent picture in a first place based on what I see being posted in forums.

No doubt there is a need for technical skills to do it and no doubt that it is difficult work. But... for what reason and what is the additional value? Totally pointless for anything other than showing that "Look, I can do this."

As for the "Heck, most of you haters can't even take a decent picture in a first place based on what I see being posted in forums." My question to you, Imagefoundry is: Says who exactly? The person with empty gallery? Ha... ha... you made me laugh.

Considering you seem to hate the haters you also seem to have a lot of hate in you.

Was a matter Olyflyer, bad childhood? Everyone was so critical of you? Or is it that you picked the wrong camera to use and are so cranky it is just leaking out of you like rusty contaminated water? My Question to you, Who are you exactly? Not exactly the photographers eye brain trust? No just someone with low self esteem perhaps trying to put others down to make himself feel good?

The arguments here seem to range from 'let a 1000 flowers bloom' to 'how dare she', with some detours in between. In general i tend to side with letting artists experiment--but this isnt the same as painting a moustache on the mona lisa, which will never be confused with the original work. On the contrary, this seems to implicitly suggest that it is a 'better' version of the artist's intent (because it masquerades as closer to reality) than what we are currently stuck with, as if it were a restoration of a chapel fresco. That seems to be the gist of the many comments that 'the world is in color, bw is a manipulative lie'.

This i think is the biggest issue: a fundamental misapprehension of what goes into bw photography. Yes, MBW looked out on a color world; no, she did not frame her subjects in color. All of these photographers knew what they were doing and worked in bw deliberately. [continued]

[from above]Bw wasn't a technical limitation that held their work back, it was a creative tool they exploited for conscious expressive effect. the fact that some of them didn't have a practical option to shoot in color doesn't mean they really wanted to do so, relegating their actual efforts to the status of some kind of mistake or inferior draft of history. And even if they had a desire to make color photos, they crafted these with a different aim.

It is this covert subversion of the artistic expression of the original photographer, rather than the colorizer's overt and distinct original contribution, that characterizes the present incarnation of the photographs. I dont find that worthy of celebration.

To my eyes, the only one of these photos which seems to work as well in false color is the last one. (a better prepared bw version might change that.) the others all suffer by comparison.

This is perhaps some of the most considerate and thorough commentary I've seen recently. And, that is not to say that I agree completely with you. But, I too, believe that shooting for b/w is to embrace different potentials, ones that use a specific visual vocabulary, and certainly ones not limited in impact. There continues, in the present, to be an interesting designed alchemy in producing b/w images, a measure of abstraction of the color that is readily seen and most familiar in our everyday perceptions.